Kill stealing is a gameplay experience, last-hitting is the game mechanics leading to it. There are several ways to distribute reward each with their own problems. I.e. Experience_point#Activity-based_progression conditions player to do some ridiculous grinding. My intention was to describe them. NikitaSadkov (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

This should just be a section in the MOBA article. I don't see how this will ever expand, as it's only a paragraph long outside of the lead. If nobody objects, I'll do it in a few days. ~ Dissident93(talk) 08:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Redirected to Nintendo mobile games because it was only a few sentences long with the only sources being two announcement articles. Nothing else is known about the game currently. ~ Dissident93(talk) 08:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah good call. Almost did the same thing myself. It'll obviously be notable, but literally nothing is known yet, and based on some of their other mobile games, it could be months until we know much. Sergecross73msg me 16:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello project's participants. I would like to highlight some events that happened on the Gravity gun article. Recently I modified the article, fixed and reorganized sources and the sections. The "Gravity gun" is a weapon of Half-Life 2, as many know, even before being a "game concept based on the use of physics". As far as I know, there is no authoritative publication or expert, who have ever spoken about "Gravity gun" as a "video game concept", and even in that case sources were lacking to prove it.

So, I thought of changing the incipt of the article and making it more focused on Half-Life 2's weapon, without detracting from the fact that other games for sure used similar gameplay physics manipulation, but different from the Gravity Gun itself. As I said I also done other adjustments. Subsequently, acting for "hate" as he himself said, user Nicolas.le-guen deleted all my contributions without even discriminating the content, saying that my motivations were "justified a stupid way". I would also like to point out that the user has renamed the article from "Gravity gun" to "Gravity gun (video game concept)" without asking for consent to the project, but acting on its own initiative and suggesting me to create a Gravity gun (Half-Life) article on my own. Of course I considered his "alternative" useless, as just one article about the Gravity gun is sufficient, but it should be based on the weapon itself, before. The voice at now also presents the same other problems as before ("original research", and an entire section without sources). I don't think the article in this state is correct, just as I don't think the user's behavior has been corrected. How would be good to proceed? Thank you. Lone Internaut (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The unilateral move without discussion to an article title with needless disambiguation should be undone and the page moved back to Gravity gun.

As for the topic, such intricate in-universe gameplay elements as "one gun from Half-Life 2" do not usually warrant standalone articles. The topic of "the Gravity Gun from Half-Life 2" is best covered in Half-Life 2#Gameplay. The topic of "Gravity guns" is best covered in the WP:SINGULARWP:CONCEPTDAB page Gravity gun, which can mention the HL2 item as an example of a gravity gun. Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 19:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Salvidrim here. Also follow the example of BFG (weapon) (the disambig only needed due to other "BFG"s out there). --Masem (t) 19:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, "best covered" I would not say: there are no sources in Half-Life 2#Gameplay. The Gravity gun in Half-Life 2, it's not a simple weapon, it actually had for sure a lot of importance in the medium, should it need an article on its own? BFG is not about a weapon that can estabilish "gameplay physics manipulation" concept, but it's a weapon in a more traditional sense of the term, and it appears in other games, yes, but id Software games.

Then, are we sure that physics manipulation devices in all video games are called "Gravity guns"? That would need some sources to prove it. In Dead Space is called "Kinesis module", in Doom 3 is called "Grabber" and so on. But even if we want to consider and call "gravity guns" these gameplay concept, would not be better to call them simply "phsycics manipulation devices" and write a section about them in Game physics article? Lone Internaut (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the sourcing of the article, I feel like it is heavily WP:SYNTH. It may not be notable enough for its own page. If it is, it may have to only include the HL2 gun and remove the synth of connecting various gravity guns from various games.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Ehm, I had not really thought about it. We were talking about video games, specifically, and the article was born exclusively to the weapon of Half Life 2, in origin. Talking about "gravity guns" in movies and novels and even a "real" gravity gun ... I don't know, the article would be distorted. It would be outside of the project. We were talking about video games, I think that making a general kneading is wrong. At this point, it would make more sense to create a Gravity gun (Half-Life) article, and remove the synth of connecting various gravity guns from various games as suggested by ZXCVBNM user. Half-Life's Gravity gun is an innovation and its importance in the medium can not be denied, like BFG 9000. It would deserve its own article. The project will decide. Lone Internaut (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

There's no rule that articles about concepts found in video games have to restrict themselves to only video games. And wikiprojects exist to support article writing, not to restrict what content can be found in what articles. And as far as "The project will decide"... what exactly do you think this discussion is?

All that aside, if I saw a link to an article on Gravity gun, I would expect to see an article that had a big discussion of what the HL2 gravity gun is and how/why it was developed, followed by another lengthy section on how the concept of a physics manipulating weapon had expanded into other games and media, preferably with sources saying that those guns were inspired by the gravity gun, or at least believed to have been so by critics. I would not expect to see an article on just the HL2 gun; I really, really doubt that would be substantive enough to be an article on its own or would really be comprehensive. And if you couldn't make an article that discussed the original gun and the concept like that... then maybe the article doesn't need to exist. --PresN 19:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. An article about one weapon from one game is almost certainly going to be deleted or merged into that respective game. There's not going to be enough substantial, third party coverage about the gun itself to meet the WP:GNG. I have my doubts if the this article would survive a deletion discussion in either scenario, but in general, if you want to write about minor things like that singular weapons in games, I'd recommend a specialist wiki, like a "Half-Life wikia" or something, they're way more lax about standards for things having their own articles. Sergecross73msg me 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I think this discussion is "bringing to light" an issue that, of course, I'm not going to solve by myself, creating my own rules, moving the article, creating new ones at will or saying that someone's motivation is "justified a stupid way" as if Wikipedia was my property, like Nicolas.le-guen did.

What you "expect" was not different from how the article was, but then my contributions were reverted. And it was not even so different from now: it talked about the Gravity gun in HL2, (which in video games is known by this name only in Half Life), about how it was emulated in other games like Doom 3 (using physics in the gameplay, as a weapon) and how it had impact in the history of video games, of course by critics (by who otherwise?). In addition to that, I had arranged some sources, removed a section without sources, rearranged in order those already present and slightly modified the text. I probably would have contributed even more if the work was not interrupted.

It was all here, and besides the article's quality, it's been reverted without even discriminating its contents. Lone Internaut (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that editor was wrong to rename the article, but the points being made to you now is that 1) there's almost no way a standalone article for just the Half Life 2 version of the gun would meet Wikipedia's notability/sourcing standards 2) it's a little bit iffy if the general concept even needs an article and 3) if any article of any sort would exist, it needs to be much better sourced, and be far less about its fictional content in the games, and more about the "out of universe" context - developer's commentary on creating it, critic's reception of it, etc. Please read Wikipedia's stances on writing about fictional things and how to approach it. The article spends way to much time just describing what the guns do in the games. That's now how Wikipedia writing is supposed to be. Sergecross73msg me 21:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Except for the fact that "Gravity gun", in video games, is a name that appears only in Half-Life 2, of course it's not about only the "Half-Life 2 version" as you can see even now. The general concept revolves aroud game physics, which is an article on its own and can be expanded to talk about "physics manipulation devices". The article can still grow, improvements can be made, sources can be add. That article exist since 01:00, 4 November 2007, has grown, other users contributed. It's strange that only now all of these doubts comes out, they wouldn't probably if it was not for this talk I opened, but my intentions was not to doubt about the article, but about the fact that it would have a more centered incipit on the weapon of Half Life 2, and then on all that follows. Then my contributions were reverted in a not good way and here we are. And still: it is no very different from now, and from how the article has been in the last months/years. Lone Internaut (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree here, plus this could be expanded to talk about games where manipulation of physics (rather than just have a physics engine) are core elements of gameplay. HL2 obviously, but then you have twitchy-games like QWOP, Goat Sim, Octodad, Human Fall Flat; and physics-driven puzzles games like Bridge Constructor, World of Goo, etc. I do not know how well the sourcing is to group these, but this seems like the nature place to put them in "Game Physics". --Masem (t) 01:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was something I was thinking about. The argument is definitely better if treated in game physics. Of course, in the Gravity gun article, there is space to talk about everything that matters, including devices that are clearly "its direct legacy" like the Doom 3's Grabber, or TimeSplitters' Temporal Uplink. The article can still grow and expand, I don't think it's right to kill it. For all other similar concepts, devices or games where manipulation of physics are core elements of gameplay, the article game physics seems to be more suitable. Lone Internaut (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

In light of the recent discussion above, the inherent bias of this project identified, and the countless back-and-forth arguing over which name should be preferred even for articles considered 'neutral',[1][2] I think a project-wide consensus should be reached to straighten things out once and for all. I can't believe that people seriously think that Genesis is the common name for the console—a fallacy even reaffirmed in the 2013 RfC. Per WP:COMMONAME, the definition is ...to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. First and foremost, I would like to stress that I am not seeking to rename the Sega Genesis article to Mega Drive, but I would like to give both names equal weight throughout all articles. It shocks me to see editors systemically removing all mentions of the name 'Mega Drive' from every article they see, with the most common rationale being that Genesis is the common name. I would like to stress that this is not only false but also an excuse to reinforce a biased decision from a North American-centric environment which Wikipedia hosts (the misconception of Genesis being the common name is even bolstered in the Genesis FAQ). A common name means something the majority of people recognise what the subject is, whether it be a person, video game or a country. Some examples include:

Mega Drive → Genesis. Common name? If we went by this line of reasoning, Star Fox should be renamed Star Wing because it was co-developed in the United Kingdom, nevermind Nintendo's native Japan nor its marketing in the rest of the world. Star Wing is just as much as a common name as Genesis is.

Countries highlighted in red show where the Mega Drive was sold as 'Genesis', whereas those highlighted in blue denote the original name. Blanked out countries have no available data in regards to their sales. (It should also be taken into account that the console was introduced to "most African countries", but sources couldn't be found).

By gathering the relevant sales data for the console I have produced a map which displays the number of territories that had Genesis as the name of the console. The grand total is three, four if you count Puerto Rico. Practically the rest of the world including native Japan retained the original name Mega Drive. Common name is still Genesis, yes? Another good determiner for identifying one's common name is by seeing how many results are displayed via a Google search. For me, a simple cursory search of 'Sega Genesis' provides about 1,500,000 results, while a search of 'Mega Drive' provides 34,600,000 results.[3] I realise that other people get different results, but the fact that Mega Drive outnumbers Genesis by 33 million is a subtle tap on my shoulder hinting that Genesis isn't the common name. Even more so, when I precision it down to "Sega Mega Drive" I still get 4,470,000 results. A search through the video game custom search engine still outnumbers it greatly. If you have doubts that searching Google is an adequate criteria for finding out a preferred name, a page move request for Sonic Spinball was made using the exact same rationale and was met with unanimous support.

34,600,000 results for Mega Drive.

The bias needs to end. The English Wikipedia caters for the entire Anglosphere and not just Wisconsin. The way that the majority of WPVG editors systemically clamp down on the name Mega Drive and replace it solely with Genesis because "the article is called that" needs to stop. ENGVAR is irrelevant to preferring one term over the other – this is an encyclopedia which is used on a global basis. Both names are valid and should have total equality. JAGUAR 17:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Never trust the Google estimate. Don't even let it suggest truth to you. The last page of actual results in an alleged 15,700,000 (what it told me for "mega drive") says "Page 15 of about 148 results" and even that's bullshit because there are exactly 148 results. This is the last one in existence and it proves nothing about anything. It does contain a link to "Why you can trust BBC News", though (which is also quite meaningless). InedibleHulk(talk) 01:50, February 10, 2018 (UTC)

Google's estimated number of results is not really meaningful. See this article. It might as well be a random number generated by a process that nobody understands. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I propose that all articles on Genesis/Mega Drive video games should use the combined "Sega Genesis/Mega Drive" or "Mega Drive/Genesis at least once in the article. The presumption that Genesis is the WP:COMMONAME of the console to be challenged and both names should share equal weight. The remaining mentions of the console's name in any article should stick with using just one name, depending on editors' discretion.

Oppose proposal as is. I'm all for the part that says "Sega Genesis/Mega Drive" should be mentioned in the article at least once. If you had stopped there, I'd give a hearty support. But I don't support the abolishing the COMMONNAME argument, or the "editor's descretion" part. Far far far too much time has been wasted over at the actual article in regards to the article's naming. (I think last count was like 12?) Supporting your entire proposal would rip wide open those wounds and arguments again. Per the comments I just left above, I don't think its worth people's time and energy to keep arguing over something that I don't believe people are really confused about anymore in the first place. Sergecross73msg me 17:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: sure, my apologies I think I rushed the proposal part. Shall we tone it down to just mentioning "Sega Genesis/Mega Drive" once in the lead? I think that was something along the lines I was aiming for. But I think the common name argument should stay, or at least be open for more discussion. JAGUAR 17:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Its up to you on how much you want to take on. Simpler may be better, considering any of these G/MD discussions tend to spiral out of control... Sergecross73msg me 17:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I've tweaked the proposal. I hope people won't look down on this, it's just that I feel like I've been the only one noticing misconceptions with both names. The usage of both names at least once in the article/lead should be a good compromise. JAGUAR 17:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per the 2013 discussion on the name change. I think it's kind of crazy to list "Sega Genesis/Mega Drive" in every article-- I think whichever is used when the article is expanded past stub length should be what is used. If there's an issue with it, there should be a footnote at the first mention of Genesis or Mega Drive which notes what it was called in other regions. Nomader (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

CommentSupport I have no real issue with doing Sega Genesis/Mega Drive at first mention in the article, although I'd prefer if we just went with Sega Genesis (or Mega Drive in case of PAL/JP only games) in the infobox and later mentions for space saving reasons. Or alternative, we could handle it like we do date formats and EngVar (tied to region or first to place the tags), but this could just invite people to try and stealthy edit in their personal preference and revert anytime somebody else tries to change it (basically what's been going on already), so then again that's not ideal. However, I don't see how changing the article name to just Mega Drive would help anything besides people who hate the name, as Genesis would still have to be mentioned. ~ Dissident93(talk) 19:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Support Use Mega Drive/Genesis at first mention then something along the lines of EngVar or developer nationality to decide on single use for rest of article. Whatever solution is devised, common sense needs to reign and the use of Common Name as a reason for mass removal of Mega Drive or Mega CD needs to stop. - X201 (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Your downplaying of the continental U.S. as "just Wisconsin" seems like evidence you have an anti-US bias and this argument is in bad faith. Per previous discussion, there is no clear reason to change the name. Genesis is shorter, easier to remember, so if both terms are equally valid, I'd go with that one.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculous. You just said that I'm trying to change the name, I'm not – I'm trying to offer a decent compromise so that both names share equal weight. JAGUAR 14:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose The name used on a page should follow what makes the most sense in light of the rest of the page. If we were talking about a Japenese game, we'd stick to MegaDrive; if we were talking one made in the States, Genesis. Non-video game articles but on VG-related topics should use their discretion depending how they were written.--Masem (t) 15:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - Both names should have total equality, true. This is not the right solution, however. Article names need to be as simple as they can be, and trying to give due weight to both in the title is never going to keep it simple. So, we have to go with one or the other. Tough, but that’s the way it is. I’m not opposed to Mega Drive or to Sega Genesis, but please, only one or the other. Not both. Everyone just needs to drop any accusation of bias and just assume good faith, that the title is the best we can do given the circumstances. Red Phoenixtalk 18:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment to the proposer - "Sega Genesis / Mega Drive" is used at the top of the infobox for the Sega Genesis article. I would put it to you that this should satisfy your argument, and also I believe is a more professional and aesthetically pleasing way of handling this suggestion than putting it into the prose or titles. Red Phoenixtalk 00:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Support saying "Mega Drive/Genesis" at least once in the article. JOEBRO64 21:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose As someone that prefers "Mega Drive"...I think the "Sega Genesis/Mega Drive" wording looks amateurish. Use Genesis by default unless the game was not released in North America. The Genesis vs. Mega Drive debate has been going on for over a decade on this website, and this just muddies the waters. TarkusABtalk 22:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Support Say it both ways the first time, try to avoid saying it at all elsewhere and consider the game's more popular market if you must repeat it. InedibleHulk(talk) 01:20, February 10, 2018 (UTC)

There was apparently a discussion surrounding the presentation and style of the said template. While I understand the need for simplification.... It's now a daunting proposition to look at it. I saw it on the bottom of Final Fantasy Awakening, I initially thought something was spectacularly wrong with the template structure. Looking at the discussion, it seems there was also a wish to avoid white space, and the new arrangement...doesn't do that very much at all. Can we please have another look at this within the wider video game WikiProject? --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

someone is combining the The Monster Hunter Freedom and Monster Hunter Freedom Unite games to their corresponding main monster hunter games without any agreement or discussion made. I undid the edits at first because it didn't seem like anyone talked about merging them at all. but mine were undone and was asked to provide evidence on how there's no agreement for it. I'm not sure how to do that. but I don't see any talk pages talking about combining the articles. and its actually done super lazily. they literally cut the article and paste it on.204.153.155.151 (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems like disruptive editing to me. There is no indication that those games are not notable enough for their own articles.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Neverrainy. Sorry if the merge was a WP:GOODFAITH edit, but to merge articles you would need to pass an WP:AfD, or reach consensus on the talk page. Please do not merge these articles. To make a move, you have to prove a consensus, not the other way around Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 14:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

WRONG Merging never requires an AFD, AFD is not to be used for merging (however, a merge result might result from an AFD). Anyone is free to boldly merge articles, but in cases where the articles are both reasonably well-established, that should be checked through talk page discussion. --Masem (t) 14:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

When I want to merge an article, I always follow the procedure laid out at WP:Merging, even if I think it's a completely uncontroversial merge. Merging articles (as opposed to simply redirecting, which I often see inaccurately referred to as merging) is too long and painstaking a process to have it simply reverted two seconds later and discover that consensus doesn't support it. It's much better to make sure the community supports what you're doing before you go through all that work.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the user is an experienced editor. But I don't personally agree with merging articles without ever mentioning it on the talk page(s) as courtesy. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 15:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Neverrainy consistently makes bad edits. He's one of the most incompetent editors I've come across and net negative to the project. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey. This is a personal attack and crosses a line. Please redact this and do not continue in this vein. --PresN 18:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the issue is just throwing out personal attacks. If you have the diffs to prove that the editor is harming Wikipedia, that should be reported on the noticeboard, rather than just stated outright that "this editor is incompetent", which accomplishes nothing.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Don't call out users. I said the user is an experienced editor, that should mean he knows the policies, but if his editing is poor, it should be mentioned on the noticeboard, or specific examples on his talk page. I did look, and their record is far from spotless, but no Personal Attacks please. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 16:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Howdy all! I'm back to get suggestions with another Pokémon list, this time the List of Pokémon Trading Card Game sets. Right now the article is a woeful mess of fan content with useful information sprinkled in haphazardly. I've started a revamped list here and would like some input on what to include beyond the basics already mentioned. At present, I'm thinking of including promotional sets/cards in a separate section that summarizes them (or a list if there's too much for prose). I have yet to look into actual sources for fleshing out details on each set so any tips on where to go for that info would be greatly appreciated! I'm coming here instead of the Pokémon project as it's a related topic and users here are more active. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow. This guy attempted to create a Miiverse replacement once it's discontinuation was announced. The project failed and folded before Miiverse even went down. And then the guy came here to chronicle his exploits on Wikipedia. Why would someone do this?? Sergecross73msg me 04:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Can obviously unwanted draft articles like this be tagged with speedily delete? I tried doing that one time and it got reverted. ~ Dissident93(talk) 04:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sadly, these articles don't meet any of the Speedy Delete criteria for Drafts. The only real thing that could be is a WP:COPYVIO deletion under G12, if it were copied from somewhere. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 12:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey all-- my DYK request for Command and Destroy has been sitting around since 1/9-- it needs a reviewer to approve the ALT2 that the previous reviewer suggested. If anyone wants to come around and check it, that'd be swell! Nomader (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This was news to me ... maybe I'm the last to know. David Levy has okayed File:Freedom_Planet_Torque_Sketch.jpg for a Main Page appearance at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 17, 2018. We haven't had many acceptable Main Page images for Featured Article video games. This one is from the press kit for the game. It's CC-BY-SA, and that's a reasonable depiction of one of the main characters. If we can get more CC-BY-SA concept art for future TFAs, that would be great. - Dank (push to talk) 04:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:JFN is being discussed again on the talk page of MOS:VG. Additionally recommend that if you did not previously watch the page when it was a project guideline, you watchlist it now that it's MOS. Any changes related to it should be discussed there now, not here as we have in the past. -- ferret (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with the Fallout 4 Awards table, as it is all scrambled and messed up! I don't know how to fix it, and I need to add in Fallout 4 VR and its release dates and its 2017-2018 accolades! How can I fix the Awards table? Please help me! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)